IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

R.G. Flath Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1984-10-12 Country: USA
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  ■ Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2003-04 Soo Indians NAHL 54 15 9 24 0.444 0.1650 0.1644 0.4705 0.4688
2004-05 Soo Indians NAHL 55 15 17 32 0.582 0.2160 0.2045 0.6160 0.5832
■ Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   ■ Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2006-07 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — SO 27 19 14 33 1.222
2005-06 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — FR 25 18 13 31 1.240
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.24
2005-06 · Milwaukee School of Engineering
+668.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#20843
Forward overall
#715
Forward born in 1984
#2036
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ryan Doucet
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Air Force (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ian Miller
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jayson Angus
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.66 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Grant Newcomer
Concordia · 2021-22
0.518 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Parker Wood
Endicott · 2014-15
0.875 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Nicolas Guerra
Concordia · 2016-17
0.783 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.